to Protect Nothing

Thursday, July 21, 2005

A hideously unfair group called is already attacking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, saying -- surprise -- Roberts is unfit to serve on the nation's highest court because he isn't a liberal.

The group, started by former Wesley Clark staffers, tries to build a case against the solid judge by attacking him based on the clients he once if Johnnie Cochran had anything to do with the killing of O.J.'s wife.

If you didn't know, the job of the lawyer is to defend his client, not his interest. Yet there are groups hell-bent on seeing the defeat of Roberts' elevation to the Supreme Court. Perhaps you guys should spend more time trying to win an election. Then it will be your guy nominating all the Ginsbergs your heart desires.

But the people have spoken and rewarded Bush with another four years in office. It is his privilege to shape the Supreme Court. Not's and certainly not the minority Democrats in Congress.

Note: The existence of was brought to my attention by the excellent Supreme Court Nomination blog.

In my latest article I dissect every argument made by the group, all but one having anything to do with Roberts' record as a judge. From the article:

The campaign site warns: "In 1991, Roberts argued that doctors who receive federal funding cannot talk to patients about abortion options. Roberts was Deputy Solicitor General during the case of Rust vs. Sullivan."

Yes, he argued on behalf of his client - kind of like how Johnnie Cochran argued on behalf of O.J. Simpson. That's what lawyers do, they represent their clients without necessarily arguing their own beliefs.

Again on the same theme: "Roberts helped write a brief that reiterated the first Bush administration's opposition to the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade, arguing, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Only close-minded liberals have trouble understanding how some judges could find fault in how a "right to privacy" was forged from the Constitution that never mentions those words.

Still though, the brief was written on behalf of a client, with an exclaimer that stated it wasn't his own opinion. Moreover, as a D.C. Appeals Court judge, Roberts rightfully vowed to uphold the legality of Roe v. Wade. See, he knows how to be a judge and doesn't put his personal beliefs before the law.

Finally, we can now discuss Roberts' record as a judge, not a lawyer...nope; wait - he's still a lawyer representing a client. states: "In 1993, Roberts argued in Bray vs. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, that protestors who blocked the entrance to reproductive health clinics did not discriminate against women. Congress later enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) to protect women and health care providers from violence and harassment."

Because when you block an entrance to a clinic by not allowing anyone in, you're applying fair standards and aren't discriminating against anyone, even women! But even if Roberts was making that finding as a judge -- which he wasn't -- it sparked the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. That's how our government works. The courts rule on the current law and Congress fixes the problem by enacting new legislation. Congress fixes the law. Not the courts.

Again as a lawyer: "John Roberts argued that it was constitutional for a public school to sponsor prayer at its graduation ceremony in a friend of court brief filed in the 1991 case of Lee vs. Weisman."

Being that there isn't anything mentioned about public schools in the First Amendment, Roberts again hit a homerun when he argued before a third party that prayer at a graduation ceremony isn't "Congress establishing a religion." Of course the liberal members of the Supreme Court disagreed and voted against Roberts' client. In the opinion of one of those justices, Anthony Kennedy fails to show how the case has anything to do with Congress, but that is what you should expect from a Constitution-expanding liberal justice; the kind wants.

Once again Roberts is attacked because of whom he represented: "In the case of Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, Roberts served as Toyota's lead counsel and argued to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act."

Only when attacks Johnnie Cochran for representing O.J. should they bring up cases like this as if Roberts was arguing on behalf of his own interests. Same for this scenario: "John Roberts joined the Reagan administration's efforts to stop Congress from overturning a 1980 Supreme Court decision in Mobile vs. Bolden that weakened parts of the Voting Rights Act."

It was his job. He wasn't a judge interpreting the Constitution, he was fulfilling his obligation on behalf of the Reagan administration.'s last complaint against Roberts is about his position on the environment, the first and only time the site discusses him as a judge, not a lawyer working for somebody else. "Roberts questioned the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act in a dissent from the decision by the D.C. Circuit not to reconsider the ruling by a three-judge panel in the 2003 case of Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton. The case involved a company filing suit against the government after its construction project was stopped because the Environmental Protection Agency found it was 'likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad.'"

So for siding with a construction company that couldn't contract work because the EPA said it might endanger the existence of a toad Roberts is now anti-environment? Whether you like frogs or not, Roberts' opinion that a toad which lives exclusively in California and isn't subject to blanket federal commerce clause legislation is perfectly reasonable, agree with it or not.

Only once does criticize an actual court opinion written by John Roberts as a judge. This is because there isn't anything controversial about the nominee. As a judge he is as fair as it gets, resorting to the written law when finding facts. That an organization strongly opposed to John Roberts can only come up with one case against him is telling, and proves how far liberals will go to attack somebody who doesn't agree with them on everything.